Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No.

139518 March 6, 2001

EVANGELINE L. PUZON, petitioner, vs. STA. LUCIA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., respondent. PANGANIBAN, J.: Are notices to owners of adjoining lots and actual occupants of the subject property mandatory and jurisdictional in petitions for judicial reconstitution of destroyed original certificates of title, when the source for such reconstitution is the extant owner's duplicate transfer certificate of title? More specifically, is the failure to send those notices fatal to a trial court's final and executory decision granting the reconstitution? In other words, may the decision be annulled on the ground of lack of jurisdiction? The short answer to all of these questions is "No." The Case Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the April 30, 1999 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), as well as its July 21, 1999 Resolution2 denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. The dispositive part of the Decision reads: "WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The decision dated February 11, 1994 in LRC Case No. Q-6436 (93) of RTC, Br. 80, Quezon City is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. TCT Nos. RT-78673 (240131) and RT-78672 (213611) reconstituted in the name of private respondent Evangeline L. Puzon are declared cancelled and null and void for being in violation [of] Republic Act No. 26, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 7-96 and Land Registration Authority circulars. SO ORDERED." The Facts On June 11, 1988, a fire in the office of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City destroyed, among others, the original copies of petitioner's Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 240131 and 213611 issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, covering two lots with areas of 109,038 and 66,836 square meters respectively, both located in the District of Capitol, Quezon City. In October 1993, petitioner filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 80, a Petition for the judicial reconstitution of the two destroyed titles. The Petition, docketed as LRC Rec. No. Q-6436 (93), was based on the owner's duplicate copies of the TCTs, which were in petitioner's possession.

The October 26, 1993 RTC Order, which served as the notice for the hearing of the Petition for reconstitution, was published in two (2) successive issues of the Official Gazette. Thirty days before the date of hearing, the Order was also posted at the entrance of the Quezon City Hall Building and on the bulletin board of the trial court. Together with a copy of the Petition, it was served on the Office of the Solicitor General, the Register of Deeds for Quezon City, the Land Registration Authority (LRA), the Land Management Bureau, and the Office of the City Prosecutor for Quezon City. During the trial which commenced on January 17, 1994, no opposition was registered. A representative from the Office of the Solicitor General, however, appeared and crossexamined petitioner, who was the sole witness. After trial, the RTC rendered its Decision dated February 11, 1994. The court disposed as follows: "WHEREFORE, the Court hereby GRANTS the petition. Accordingly, the Register of Deeds of Quezon City is ordered to reconstitute the original copies of TCT Nos. 213611 and 240131 from and on the basis of the owner's duplicate copies thereof in possession of petitioner Evangeline L. Puzon, after payment of the prescribed legal fees."3 Accordingly, the Register of Deeds of Quezon City issued to herein petitioner TCT Nos. RT78673 (240131) and RT-78672 (213611). These TCTs were for the lots covered by the destroyed certificates, whose numbers are indicated in the parentheses. After discovering in 1996 that Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc., herein respondent, was occupying a portion of the land covered by TCT No. RT-78673 (240131), petitioner filed against it and Garsons Co. Inc. a Complaint for Accion Reinvindicatoria with Damages and Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order/Writ of Injunction. On March 25, 1998, while the accion reinvindicatoria was still pending before the RTC of Quezon City (Branch 104), respondent filed before the CA a Petition for Annulment of Judgment, seeking to annul and set aside the earlier Decision of the RTC of Quezon City (Branch 80) in the reconstitution case. Ruling of the Court of Appeals Annulling the Decision of the RTC (Branch 80), the CA held that petitioner had failed to comply with the requirements of Section 13, Republic Act No. 26. Citing Republic v. Marasigan,4 it ruled that notices to adjoining owners and actual occupants of the land were mandatory and jurisdictional in an action for the judicial reconstitution of a certificate of title. It also opined that the RTC Decision had been rendered without requiring a clearance from the LRA. Finally, it referred to earlier findings of the land registration commissioner that petitioner's TCT No. RT-78672 (213611) was fake. Hence, this Petition.5 The Issues Petitioner raises the following issues for the consideration of this Court: "1. The Honorable Court of Appeals grossly erred in applying the provisions of Section 13 of R.A. No. 26, which is applicable only in relation to Section 12 of R.A.

No. 26. Notices to adjoining owners and actual occupants of the land are not mandatory and jurisdictional in reconstitution of titles based on the owner's duplicate copy. "2. The Court of Appeals grossly erred in holding that 'clearance from the land registration authority' is a jurisdictional requirement. "3. The Court of Appeals grossly erred in holding that petitioner's TCT No. RT-87672 (213611) covering lot 119 is fake and spurious."6 The Court's Ruling The Petition is meritorious. First Issue: Notice Requirement Respondent and the CA contend that notices to owners of adjoining lots are mandatory in the judicial reconstitution of a title. They cite as authority Section 13 of Republic Act No. 26,7 which we reproduce hereunder: "SEC. 13. The Court shall cause a notice of the petition, filed under the preceding section, to be published at the expense of the petitioner, twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette, and to be posted on the main entrance of the provincial building and of the municipal building of the municipality or city in which the land is situated, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing. The court shall likewise cause a copy of the notice to be sent, by registered mail or otherwise, at the expense of the petitioner, to every person named therein whose address is known, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing. Said notice shall state, among other things, the number of the lost or destroyed certificate of title, if known, the name of the registered owner, the names of the occupants or persons in possession of the property, the owners of the adjoining properties and all other interested parties, the location, area and boundaries of the property, and the date on which all persons having any interest therein must appear and file their claim or objections to the petition. The petitioner shall, at the hearing, submit proof of the publication, posting and service of the notice as directed by the court." The clear language of the law militates against the interpretation of respondent and the appellate court. The first sentence of Section 13 provides that the requirements therein pertain only to petitions for reconstitution filed under "the preceding section," Section 12, which in turn governs those petitions based on specified sources. We quote Section 12 below: "SEC. 12. Petition for reconstitution from sources enumerated in Section 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), and/or 3(f) of this Act, shall be filed with the proper Court of First Instance, by the registered owner, his assigns, or any person having an interest in the property. The petition shall state or contain, among other things, the following: (a) that the owner's duplicate of the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed; (b) that no co-owner's, mortgagee's or lessee's duplicate had been issued, or, if any had been issued, the same had been lost or destroyed; (c) the location area and boundaries of the property; (d) the nature and description of the buildings or improvements, if any, which do not belong to the owner of the land, and the names

and addresses of the owners of such buildings or improvements; (e) the name and addresses of the occupants or persons in possession of the property, of the owners of the adjoining properties and of all persons who may have interest in the property; and (g) a statement that no deeds or other instruments affecting the property have been presented for registration, or, if there be any, the registration thereof has not been accomplished, as yet. All the documents, or authenticated copies thereof, to be introduced in evidence in support to the petition for reconstitution shall be attached thereto and filed with the same: Provided, That in case the reconstitution is to be made exclusively from sources enumerated in Section 2(f) or 3(f) of this Act, the petition shall be further accompanied with a plan and technical description of the property duly approved by the Commissioner of Land Registration, or with a certified copy of the description taken from a prior certificate of title covering the same property." In other words, the requirements under Sections 12 and 13 do not apply to all petitions for judicial reconstitution, but only to those based on any of the sources specified in Section 12; that is, "sources enumerated in Section 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), and/or 3(f) of this Act." Sections 2 and 3 of RA 26 provide as follows: "SEC. 2. Original certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order: (a) The owner's duplicate of the certificate of title; (b) The co-owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's duplicate of the certificate of title; (c) A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof; (d) An authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the case may be, pursuant to which the original certificate of title was issued; (e) A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the property, the description of which is given in said document, is mortgaged, leased or encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its original had been registered; and (f) Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title. "SEC. 3. Transfer certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order: (a) The owner's duplicate of the certificate of title; (b) The co-owner's, mortgagee's or lessee's duplicate of the certificate of title; (c) A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the register

of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof; (d) The deed of transfer or other document on file in the registry of deeds, containing the description of the property, or an authenticated copy thereof, showing that its original had been registered, and pursuant to which the lost or destroyed transfer certificate of title was issued; (e) A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the property the description of which is given in said documents, is mortgaged, leased or encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its original had been registered; and (f) Any other documents which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title." (italics supplied) In the present case, the source of the Petition for the reconstitution of title was petitioner's duplicate copies of the two TCTs mentioned in Section 3(a). Clearly, the Petition is governed, not by Sections 12 and 13, but by Section 10 of RA 26. We quote said Section 10 in full: "SEC. 10. Nothing hereinabove provided shall prevent any registered owner or person in interest from filing the petition mentioned in Section Five of this Act directly with the proper Court of First Instance, based on sources enumerated in Section 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b), and/or 4(a) of this Act: Provided, however, That the Court shall cause a notice of the petition, before hearing and granting the same, to be published in the manner stated in Section Nine8 hereof: And provided, further, That certificates of title reconstituted pursuant to this section shall not be subject to the encumbrance referred to in Section Seven of this Act." Nothing in this provision requires that notices be sent to owners of adjoining lots. Verily, that requirement is found in Section 13, which does not apply to petitions based on an existing owner's duplicate TCT. Put differently, Sections 9 and 10 of RA 26 require that 30 days before the date of hearing, (1) a notice be published in two successive issues of the Official Gazette at the expense of the petitioner, and (2) such notice be posted at the main entrances of the provincial building and of the municipal hall where the property is located. The notice shall state the following: (1) the number of the certificate of title, (2) the name of the registered owner, (3) the names of the interested parties appearing in the reconstituted certificate of title, (4) the location of the property, and (5) the date on which all persons having an interest in the property, must appear and file such claims as they may have. For petitions based on sources enumerated in Sections 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e) and 3(f), Section 13 adds another requirement: that the notice be mailed to occupants, owners of adjoining lots, and all other persons who may have an interest in the property. To repeat, mailing the notice is not required for a petition based on Sections 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b) and 4(a), as in the present case. In this light, the cases cited by respondent -- particularly Republic v. Marasigan,9 Manila Railroad Co. vs. Moya10and Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals11-- are not applicable, because they all involve judicial reconstitution under Sections 12 and 13 of RA 26.

There is no question that in such actions, notices to adjoining owners and to the actual occupants of the land are mandatory and jurisdictional. But in petitions for reconstitution falling under Sections 9 and 10 of RA 26 where, as in the present case, the source is the owner's duplicate copy, notices to adjoining owners and to actual occupants of the land are not required. When the law is clear, the mandate of the courts is simply to apply it, not to interpret or to speculate on it. In sum, RA 26 separates petitions for reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates of title into two main groups with two different requirements and procedures. Sources enumerated in Sections 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b), and 4(a) of RA 26 are lumped under one group (Group A); and sources enumerated in Sections 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), and 3(f) are placed together under another group (Group B). For Group A, the requirements for judicial reconstitution are set forth in Section 10 in relation to Section 9 of RA 26; while for Group B, the requirements are in Sections 12 and 13 of the same law. In the present case, the source of the reconstitution of petitioner's TCT is the extant owner's copy, which falls under Section 3(a). It follows that the applicable provision of law is Section 10 in relation to Section 9 of RA 26, not Sections 12 and 13. When the reconstitution is based on an extant owner's duplicate TCT, the main concern is the authenticity and genuineness of the Certificate, which could best be determined or contested by the government agencies or offices concerned, principally the Office of the Solicitor General. The adjoining owners or actual occupants of the property covered by the TCT are hardly in a position to determine the genuineness of the Certificate. Giving them notice and inviting them to participate in the reconstitution proceeding is not only illogical, but constitutes a useless effort to clog the dockets of courts. Let it also be remembered that the TCT holder in this case had no fault at all in the destruction of the original Certificate in the office of the Register of Deeds. Hence, she should not be burdened with meaningless formalities in the prosecution of her property rights, including the reconstitution of her original TCT. Moreover, the interests of creditors, whose liens may have been registered in the original Certificate on file with the Register of Deeds but not annotated in the owner's copy, are addressed by the publication requirement. However, even in this instance, the notification of adjoining owners is hardly necessary. Finally, the parties must not lose sight of the nature of judicial reconstitution proceedings, which denote a "restoration of the instrument which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed in its original form and condition. The purpose of the reconstitution of title or any document is to have the same reproduced, after proper proceedings in the same form they were when the loss or destruction occurred."12 We emphasize that these actions do "not pass upon the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title. Possession of a lost certificate of title is not necessarily equivalent to ownership of the land covered by it. The certificate of title, by itself, does not vest ownership; it is merely an evidence of title over a particular property."13 Second Issue Pertinent Circulars Petitioner also contends that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that an LRC clearance is a jurisdictional requirement. We agree. None of the circulars mentioned in Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 7-96 ("Circular 7-96") requires any clearance from the Land Registration Authority for the judicial reconstitution of certificates of title under Section 10 of RA 26. NALTDRA Circular No. 91 ("Circular 91"), which is mentioned in Circular 7-96 and

has the word "clearance" in its heading, deals with the subject of original land registration cases, not reconstitution of titles. Thus, Circular 91 is not applicable to this case. Even LRC Circular No. 35, which is also mentioned in Circular 7-96, does not require any clearance. Rather, it requires the Chief of the Clerks of Court Division to make a report, and likewise the Register of Deeds to write a report of his or her findings after verifying the status of the title, which is the subject of the reconstitution. Both reports are to be submitted to the reconstitution court on or before the date of the initial hearing. 14 It is not mandatory, however, for the reconstitution court to wait for such reports indefinitely. If none is forthcoming on or before the date of the initial hearing, it may validly issue an order or judgment granting reconstitution. This is implied from the provisions of Section 16 of the same Circular, which states: "16. Should an order or judgment granting reconstitution be issued by the Court without awaiting the report and the recommendations of this Commission as well as the verification of the Register of Deeds concerned, or while the examination, verification and preparation of the report and recommendation are still pending in the said Offices due to the failure of the Clerk of Court or the petitioner to comply with all the necessary requirements as called for herein, and it appears that there is a valid ground to oppose the reconstitution, a motion to set aside the order/judgment granting reconstitution or to stay the period of finality of said order/judgment shall be filed by the Land Registration Commissioner and/or the Register of Deeds thru the Solicitor General or the provincial or city fiscal concerned." In the present case, therefore, neither was the Petition for reconstitution affected nor was the RTC divested of its jurisdiction by the fact that the trial court rendered the judgment ordering the reconstitution of a lost or destroyed certificate of title without awaiting the report and recommendations of the land registration commissioner and the register of deeds of Quezon City. Also, LRC Circular No. 35 requires that notices of hearings be given to the register of deeds of the place where the property is located, the land registration commissioner and the provincial or city fiscal.15 But nowhere does it require that such notices be sent also to owners of adjoining properties and actual occupants of the land. Thus, in the present case, the fact that none were sent to the owners of adjoining lots or to the alleged actual occupants of the subject property did not negate the jurisdiction of the RTC. Third Issue The Character of Petitioner's TCT Lastly, petitioner questions the finding of the Court of Appeals that her TCT No. RT-87672 (213611) is fake. Again, we find merit in her submission. We stress that the Petition filed by respondent before the CA was for the annulment of judgment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Such recourse is limited to the grounds provided by law, and cannot be used to reopen the entire controversy.16 The CA was not being called upon to determine the character of petitioner's TCT. Evidently, its ruling with respect thereto was merely an obiter dictum that did not, and indeed could not, rule on such matter. It had no authority to do so. Verily, the only issue before the CA was the jurisdiction of the RTC, not the correctness of the latter's Decision which had become final and unappealable. In debunking the

genuineness of petitioner's TCT, it was going beyond the ambit of the case before it: the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the RTC to render the questioned judgment. WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED, and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No costs. SO ORDERED. Melo, Vitug, Gonzaga-Reyes, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

Footnotes Penned by Justice Corona Ibay-Somera (Division chairman) and concurred in by Justices Oswaldo D. Agcaoili and Eloy R. Bello Jr. (members); rollo, pp. 46-56.
1 2

Rollo, p. 58. Rollo, p. 177; written by Judge Agustin L. Dizon. 198 SCRA 219, June 6, 1991.

The case was deemed submitted for resolution on September 13, 2000, upon receipt by this Court of petitioner's Memorandum signed by Atty. Francisco P. Acosta. Respondent adopted its Comment, which was signed by Atty. Abner O. Antazo, as its Memorandum.
5 6

Petitioner's Memorandum, p. 20; rollo, p. 259. RA 26 must be viewed in the light of 110 of PD 1529, which provides:

"SEC. 110. Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original of Torrens title . -- Original copies of certificates of title lost or destroyed in the offices of Register of Deeds as well as liens and encumbrances affecting the lands covered by such titles shall be reconstituted judicially in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Republic Act No. 26 insofar as not inconsistent with this Decree. The procedure relative to administrative reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificate prescribed in said Act is hereby abrogated. Notice of all hearings of the petition for judicial reconstitution shall be given to the Register of Deeds of the place where the land is situated and to the Commissioner of Land Registration. No order or judgment ordering the reconstitution of a certificate of title shall become final until the lapse of thirty days from receipt by the Register of Deeds and by the Commissioner of Land Registration of a notice of such order or judgment without any appeal having been filed by any of such officials."
8

9 reads as follows:

"SEC. 9. A registered owner desiring to have his reconstituted certificate of title freed

from the encumbrance mentioned in Section Seven of this Act, may file a petition to that end with the proper Court of First Instance, giving his reason or reasons therefor. A similar petition may, likewise, be filed by a mortgagee, lessee, or other lien holder whose interest is annotated in the reconstituted certificate of title. Thereupon, the court shall cause a notice of the petition to be published, at the expense of the petitioner, twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette, and to be posted on the main entrance of the provincial building and of the municipal building of the municipality or city in which the land lies, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing, and after hearing shall determine the petition and render such judgment as justice and equity may require. The notice shall specify, among other things, the number of the certificate of title, the name of the registered owner, the names of the interested parties appearing in the reconstituted certificate of title, the location of the property, and the date on which all persons having an interest in the property must appear and file such claim as they may have. The petitioner shall, at the hearing submit proof of the publication and posting of the notice: Provided, however, That after the expiration of two years from the date of the reconstitution of a certificate of title, if no petition has been filed within that period under the preceding section, the court shall, on motion ex parte by the registered owner or other person having registered interest in the reconstituted certificate of title, order the register of deeds to cancel, after proper annotation, the encumbrance mentioned in Section Seven hereof."
9

198 SCRA 219, June 6, 1991. 14 SCRA 358, June 22, 1965. 102 SCRA 391, January 27, 1981. Alipoon v. CA, GR No. 127523, March 22, 1999, per Gonzaga-Reyes, J.

10

11

12

Strait Times, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 294 SCRA 714, August 28, 1998, per Panganiban, J.
13 14

LRC Circular No. 35, 8-12. The Notice shall state among other things:

15

(a) the number of the lost or destroyed certificates of title, if known; (b) the name of the registered owner; (c) the location and area of the property; (d) the names of the occupants or persons in possession of the property; (e) the owners of the adjoining properties; (f) all other interested parties; and the date on which all persons having any interest therein must appear and file their claim or objection to the petition.

The Clerk of Court must comply strictly with the requirements of publication, posting and mailing as required under Sec. 13 of RA No. 26. Notices of hearings shall also be given to the Register of Deeds of the place where the property is located, the Land Registration Commissioner and the provincial or city fiscal of the province or city where the land is located who shall appear for and protect the interests of the government in court on the basis of the report and recommendations of the Land Registration Commissioner and the Register of deeds concerned which are required to be submitted to the Court. Upon receipt of the petition, the Records Section of this Commission shall, after the same is recorded in a separate book used exclusively for reconstitution cases, forward all the papers to the Clerk of Court Division for processing. If the Chief, Clerks of Court Division, finds that the requirements as called for by these guidelines have not been complied with, or that the plan and technical description as submitted by the petitioner are deficient or defective, the Court shall be informed thereof so that action on the petition may be held in abeyance until after the requirements shall have been complied with. Thereafter, the Chief, Clerks of Court Division, shall forward the entire records of the case, properly foldered, to the head Geodetic Engineer of the Division of Original Registration for examination and verification. After the processing and approval of the plan and technical description pursuant to Administrative Order No. 13, dated July 7, 1969 and the verification and examination of the documents to be used as the source of the reconstitution shall have been accomplished, the Head Geodetic Engineer shall return the entire records of the case, together with his written comments and/or findings, to the Chief, Clerks of Court Division, for the preparation of the corresponding report. 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides: "The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction." See also Heirs of Antonio Pael et al. v. CA, GR No. 133547, February 10, 2000; Pascual v. CA, 300 SCRA 214, December 16, 1998; Arcelona v. CA, 280 SCRA 20, October 2, 1997.
16

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT

Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 166899 August 10, 2006 HEIRS OF PASTORA LOZANO, represented by their Attorney-in-Fact, EDUARDO LOZANO, Petitioner, vs. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, LINGAYEN, PANGASINAN, and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents. DECISION CALLEJO, SR., J.: Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court seeking to reverse the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) 2 in CA-G.R. CV No. 66632, which annulled and set aside the ruling 3of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Villasis, Pangasinan, Branch 50 in Petition No. V-0036 (Cad. Lot No. 196, T.C.T. No. 17100), as well as the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration thereof. On August 7, 1998, Pastora R. Lozano filed a petition with the RTC of Villasis, Pangasinan, for the reconstitution of the original copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 17100 covering Lot No. 196 of the Cadastral Survey of Villasis, Pangasinan. She prayed that, after due notice, publication, and hearing, an order be issued directing the Register of Deeds of Lingayen, Pangasinan to reconstitute the office file of the title to be based on the technical description embodied in the owners duplicate copy itself, upon payment of the required legal fees. 4

On August 12, 1998, the RTC issued an Order 5 setting the initial hearing of the petition at 8:30 a.m. on December 2, 1998. During the hearing, petitioner did not appear. Neither was there any opposition to the petition, although the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor entered his special appearance for the Republic of the Philippines. The hearing was reset at 8:30 a.m. on January 27, 1999. 6 However, on January 11, 1999, the trial court learned that its August 12, 1998 Order had not been published in a newspaper of general circulation in Pangasinan, or in the Official Gazette, as mandated by law. The hearing set on January 27, 1999 was cancelled. 7 Also, on January 11, 1999, the RTC issued an Order 8 stating that the petition, being sufficient in form and substance, set for initial hearing at 8:30 a.m. on July 8, 1999, and all interested persons were enjoined to appear and show cause why the same should not be granted. On March 27, 1999, petitioner died intestate and was survived by her heirs. 9 Thereafter, the heirs prayed that they be substituted as petitioners, 10 attaching thereto a Special Power of Attorney appointing German R. Lozano as representative in the case. During the July 8, 1999 hearing, petitioners failed to prove that the January 11, 1999 Order of the court was posted at the main entrance of the Provincial Capitol, the Office of the

Register of Deeds, and at the Municipal Hall of Villasis, Pangasinan. Despite the foregoing, the trial court issued on July 8, 1999 an Order of General Default, declaring that petitioners were able to establish the jurisdictional requirements for the court to take cognizance of the petition. 11 During the hearing on October 19, 1999, German R. Lozano testified. However, petitioners reserved their right to submit as evidence the deed executed by Sixto Dominguez covering the property in favor of the spouses Marciano Racadio and Emiliana Galima. 12 The deed was not adduced in evidence, and in lieu thereof, petitioners offered a Certificate issued by the Acting Register of Deeds that the original file copy of the Deed of Conveyance in favor of said spouses could not be located and "is presumed lost or destroyed as a consequence of the lost record." 13 Petitioners adduced the following testimonial and documentary evidence: the spouses Marciano Racadio and Emiliana Galima were the registered owners of the property located at San Andres Street, Zone IV, Villasis, Pangasinan, with an area of 1,352 square meters covered by TCT No. 17100. Upon the demise of the spouses Racadio, they were survived by their daughter, Pastora Lozano, as sole heir. 14 Sometime in 1957, Pastora Lozano left Pangasinan and was employed in Manila. She entrusted the owners duplicate of TCT No. 17100 15 to German R. Lozano who, since then had been in possession of said certificate of title. 16 They were not aware how the spouses Marciano Racadio and Emiliana Galima acquired the property, but Pastora Lozano used to tell German Lozano that it was acquired from Sixto Dominguez. 17 The property was declared for taxation purposes in 1998 under the name of Marciano Racadio as owner, under Tax Declaration No. 004-00250, 18 and that the realty taxes on the property were paid for 1998-1999. 19 Petitioners had a technical description of the property issued by a surveyor of the Local Management Office on July 9, 1999. 20 On cross-examination, German Lozano admitted that the owners duplicate of TCT No. 17100 does not contain the signature of the Register of Deeds, and that the number of the title is handwritten. 21 Petitioners formally offered their documentary evidence which the court admitted "for whatever they might be worth." 22 On January 26, 2000, the RTC rendered judgment granting the petition. The fallo of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, the court, finding the documentary and parole evidence adduced to be adequate and sufficiently persuasive to warrant the reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 17100, and pursuant to Section 110, PD 1529 and Sections 2(a) and 15 of R.A. 26, hereby directs the Register of Deeds of Lingayen, Pangasinan to reconstitute the office file copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 17100 covering the subject lot in the name of the registered owner-spouses Marciano Racadio and Emiliana Galima as appearing in the owners duplicate copy of TCT No. 17100, without prejudice to the annotation of subsisting rights or interests not duly noted in these proceedings, if any, and the right of the Administrator, Land Registration Authority, as provided for in Section 16, Land Registration Commission (now NALDTRA) Circular No. 35 dated June 13, 1983. SO ORDERED. 23 The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), as appellant, appealed the decision to the CA.

In its Appellants Brief, the OSG assigned the lone error that the trial court erred in ordering the Register of Deeds of Lingayen, Pangasinan to reconstitute the office file copy of TCT No. 17100 on the basis of an unauthenticated owners duplicate copy. 24 It averred that petitioners failed to adduce in evidence the owners duplicate of TCT No. 17100 which bears the signature of the Register of Deeds. Since petitioners failed to establish the genuineness and due execution of the owners duplicate copy of the title certificate, the trial court erred in granting the petition. 25 For their part, the heirs of Pastora Lozano alleged that since the owners duplicate of TCT No. 17100 26 is the duplicate original of TCT No. 17100 within the context of Rule 130, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Evidence, proof of the execution and genuineness of the owners duplicate copy is no longer necessary. Besides, the owners duplicate of said title is in the nature of a public document, hence, admissible in evidence without further proof of due execution or genuineness. Moreover, no private parties opposed the petition. It behooved the oppositor to prove that the owners duplicate of TCT No. 17100 27 presented was not a duplicate copy thereof. On August 27, 2004, the CA rendered judgment granting the appeal, holding as follows: After a thorough consideration of both parties contentions, [w]e are convinced that the instant appeal is impressed with merit. We give utmost consideration to the fact that the owners duplicate copy presented by appellee was not duly signed by the Register of Deeds. This defect was neither clarified nor justified by appellee both before the lower court and before Us on appeal. Appellee merely explained that what was presented before the court was a duplicate original, and thus, need not be authenticated. Such explanation, however, does not change the fact that the owners duplicate does not contain the Register of Deeds signature, making the title inherently flawed. Under Section 41, Act No. 496, it is provided that: "Immediately upon the entry of the decree of registration the clerk shall send a certified copy thereof, under the seal of the court to the register of deeds for the province, or provinces or city in which the land lies, and the register of deeds shall transcribe the decree in a book to be called the "Registration Book," in which a leaf, or leaves, in consecutive order, shall be devoted exclusively to each title. The entry made by the register of deeds in this book in each case shall be the original certificate of title, and shall be signed by him and sealed with the seal of the court. All certificates of title shall be numbered consecutively, beginning with number one. The register of deeds in each case make an exact duplicate of the original certificate, including the seal, but putting on it the words "owners duplicate certificate," and deliver the same to the owner or to his attorney duly authorized. In case of a variance between the owners duplicate certificate and the original certificate, the original shall prevail. The certified copy of the decree of registration shall be filed and numbered by the register of deeds with a reference noted on it to the place of record of the original certificate of title: Provided, however, That when an application includes land lying in more than one province or one province and the city of Manila, the court shall cause the part lying in each province or in the city of Manila to be described separately by metes and bounds in the decree of registration, and the clerk shall send to the register of deeds of each province, or the city of Manila, as the case may be, a copy of the decree containing a description of the land within that province or city, and the register of deeds shall register the same and issue an owners

duplicate therefor, and thereafter for all matters pertaining to registration under this Act the portion in each province or city shall be treated as a separate parcel of land." (Emphasis supplied) Without the signature of the Register of Deeds, the owners duplicate copy presented by appellee as basis for the reconstitution could definitely be categorized as spurious and of dubious origin. It would be very difficult to support and uphold the validity of a public document which does not bear the signature of the official in charge of the office which issued such document. In all candidness, the trial court should have been more circumspect in appraising the value of the document presented before it. Although no person came forward to contest the reconstitution of the subject title even after the requirements of posting and publication have been complied with, the duplicate copy presented by appellee, on its face, is apparently flawed. In addition, the manner the title number was written should have also alarmed the trial court as it was obviously different from the other entries in the title. 28 Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which the appellate court resolved to deny on September 28, 2004.29 Thus, the instant petition for review on certiorari, where petitioners assail the appellate courts ruling and contend that the RTC did not err when it ordered the Register of Deeds of Lingayen, Pangasinan, to reconstitute the office file copy of TCT No. 17100 on the basis of the unauthenticated duplicate copy. 30 Petitioners assert that, even if the duplicate original submitted by them is unsigned, this should not militate against their petition as they are not at fault. The lack of signature of the Register of Deeds is merely an irregularity that does not render the owners duplicate void. Besides, the issue of the validity of a Torrens title may be raised only in an action specifically brought to impugn or annul said title. In its Comment on the petition, the OSG made the following averments: 3. It is respectfully submitted that the issue submitted for resolution by petitioner as ground for the review of the assailed Court of Appeals Decision is totally irrelevant and immaterial to the sole and primordial issue in cases of reconstitution of the original copy of certificates of title on file with the Registry of Deeds, i.e., whether or not petitioner presented a competent source for the reconstitution of the certificate of title. 4. It is respectfully submitted that the Court of Appeals did not err when it declared that petitioners owners duplicate copy is not a competent source for the reconstitution of the original copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 17100, the same being not duly signed by the issuing Register of Deeds and its number being handwritten. Petitioner failed to explain such defect/irregularity. While public documents, e.g., owners duplicate copy of certificate of title, are admissible in evidence without further proof of their due execution or genuineness (Antillon vs. Barcelon, 37 Phil. 148 [1917]), the rule does not apply where, on its face, such documents are not authenticated by the official signature and seal which they are supposed to bear. Thus, while petitioner may argue that the subject property is covered by a certificate of title which was lost/destroyed, she is also duty-bound to present a competent source for its reconstitution. This, petitioner failed to do. Thus, no error may be attributed to the Court of Appeals when it reversed and set aside the RTC Decision dated January 26, 2000. 31 The sole issue is whether or not the owners duplicate which does not bear the signature of the Register of Deeds is a competent source on which a reconstitution of a title certificate

may be based. The petition is denied for lack of merit. Petitioners seek the reconstitution of the original copy of TCT No. 17100 in the custody of the Register of Deeds of Lingayen, Pangasinan. Section 10 of Republic Act (Rep. Act) No. 26 provides that the court before which a petition for the reconstitution of a TCT is filed shall cause a notice of the petition to be posted on the main entrance of the Provincial Capitol Building and of the municipal building of the municipality where the property is located, at least 30 days prior to the date of hearing, as provided in Section 9, which reads: Sec. 9. A registered owner desiring to have his reconstituted certificate of title freed from the encumbrance mentioned in section seven of this Act, may file a petition to that end with the proper Court of First Instance, giving his reason or reasons therefor. A similar petition may, likewise, be filed by a mortgagee, lessee or other lien holder whose interest is annotated in the reconstituted certificate of title. Thereupon, the court shall cause a notice of the petition to be published, at the expense of the petitioner, twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette, and to be posted on the main entrance of the provincial building and of the municipal building of the municipality or city in which the land lies, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing, and after hearing, shall determine the petition and render such judgment as justice and equity may require. The notice shall specify, among other things, the number of the certificate of title, the name of the registered owner, the names of the interested parties appearing in the reconstituted certificate of title, the location of the property, and the date on which all persons having an interest in the property must appear and file such claim as they may have. The petitioner shall, at the hearing, submit proof of the publication and posting of the notice. (Emphasis supplied) Sec. 10. Nothing hereinbefore provided shall prevent any registered owner or person in interest from filing the petition mentioned in Section five of this Act directly with the proper Court of First Instance, based on sources enumerated in Sections 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b) and/or 4(a) of this Act: Provided, however, That the Court shall cause a notice of the petition, before hearing and granting the same, to be published in the manner stated in Section nine hereof: And, provided, further, That certificates of title reconstituted pursuant to this section shall not be subject to the encumbrance referred to in Section seven of this Act. In a catena of cases, 32 the Court has ruled that the requirements under Rep. Act No. 26 are indispensable and must be strictly complied with. 33 In this case, petitioners failed to cause the posting of the trial courts Order dated January 11, 1999 at the main entrance of the Provincial Capitol of Lingayen and at the Municipal Hall of Villasis; consequently, the trial court did not acquire any jurisdiction over the petition for reconstitution. In Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, 34 the Court ruled that the requirements of Rep. Act No. 26 must be interpreted strictly and must be applied vigorously with exactness and precision to safeguard against spurious, unfounded land ownership claims. 35 It appears that the petitioners offered in evidence, as Exhibit "B," the Return of Sheriff Rodolfo Alcantara, Jr. for the purpose of proving, as the certification states, that he caused the posting of the petition, as well as the Order of the court dated January 11, 1999, in four (4) conspicuous places. 36 The Sheriffs Return adverted to by petitioners appears on page 9 of the RTC records and reads: SHERIFFS RETURN

In compliance with the Order of this Court dated August 12, 1998, issued by the Honorable Court in the above-entitled case, the undersigned has caused the posting of the copies of Order and Petition and its Annexes in the following places: 1. Bulletin Board, RTC-Br. 50, Villasis, Pangasinan. 2. Provincial Capitol, Lingayen, Pangasinan. 3. The Registry of Deeds, Lingayen, Pangasinan. 4. Municipal Hall, Villasis, Pangasinan. Villasis, Pangasinan, this 20th day of August, 1998. Signature RODOLFO A. ALCANTARA, JR. Sheriff IV 37 Patently, the Order referred to in the Sheriffs Return is the August 12, 1998 Order of the court and not its January 11, 1999 Order. In the August 12, 1998 Order of the trial court, the hearing of the petition was set on December 2, 1998. However, the initial hearing on said date was cancelled and reset to July 8, 1999 at 8:30 a.m., per order of the court on January 11, 1999. In fine, the Sheriff failed to post the trial courts January 11, 1999 Order. Under Section 3 of Rep. Act No. 26, petitioners were burdened to adduce in evidence the documents in the order stated therein as sources of the deed to be reconstituted, namely: (a) The owners duplicate of the certificate of title; (b) The co-owners, mortgagees, or lessees duplicate of the certificate of title; (c) A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof; (d) The deed of transfer or other document, on file in the Register of Deeds, containing the description of the property, or an authenticated copy thereof, showing that its original had been registered, and pursuant to which the lost or destroyed transfer certificate of title was issued; (e) A document, on file in the Register of Deeds by which the property, the description of which is given in said document, is mortgaged, leased or encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its original had been registered; and (f) Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title. Petitioners were burdened to prove the execution or existence of the original copy of TCT No. 17100 which is the copy on file in the Office of the Register of Deeds, and the contents

thereof. 38 Clearly, petitioners failed to discharge their burden. Inexplicably, they even also failed to prove the due execution of the original copy of TCT No. 17100, and failed to present any person before whom its execution was authorized, and who was present when it was executed; or the person who, after its execution saw it and recognized the signature of the Register of Deeds; or by a person to whom the Register of Deeds authorized to oversee such execution. The reconstitution of the title or deed is simply the re-issuance of the copy of the certificate of title allegedly lost or destroyed in its original form and condition. 39 The purpose of the reconstitution of title or any document is to have the same reproduced, after observing the procedure provided by law, in the same form they were when the loss or destruction occurred. 40 Section 41, second paragraph of Act No. 496 reads: "Immediately upon the entry of the decree of registration the clerk shall send a certified copy thereof, under the seal of the court to the register of deeds for the province, or provinces or city in which the land lies, and the register of deeds shall transcribe the decree in a book to be called the "Registration Book," in which a leaf, or leaves, in consecutive order, shall be devoted exclusively toe ach title. The entry made by the register of deeds in this book in each case shall be the original certificate of title, and shall be signed by him and sealed with the seal of the court. All certificates of title shall be numbered consecutively, beginning with number one. The register of deeds in each case make an exact duplicate of the original certificate, including the seal, but putting on it the words "owners duplicate certificate," and deliver the same to the owner or to his attorney duly authorized. In case of a variance between the owners duplicate certificate and the original certificate the original shall prevail. The certified copy of the decree of registration shall be filed and numbered by the register of deeds with a reference noted on it to the place of record of the original certificate of title: Provided, however, That when an application includes land lying in more than one province or one province and the city of Manila, the court shall cause the part lying in each province or in the city of Manila to be described separately by metes and bounds in the decree of registration, and the clerk shall send to the register of deeds of each province, or the city of Manila, as the case may be, a copy of the decree containing a description of the land within that province or city, and the register of deeds shall register the same and issue an owners duplicate therefore, and thereafter for all matters pertaining to registration under this Act the portion in each province or city shall be treated as a separate parcel of land." (Emphasis supplied) Any title issued by the Register of Deeds, including the original copy on file in the Office of the Register of Deeds or the owners duplicate of said title, must bear the signature of the Register of Deeds. Hence, the owners duplicate copy of title relied upon by the petitioner must be authentic and not spurious. In this case, the owners duplicate of TCT No. 17100 which petitioners adduced in evidence is not signed by the Register of Deeds, and does not even contain the number of the title certificate. After the words "Certifico de Transferencio De Titulo No." is a blank space where the number of the title is supposed to be typewritten. The petitioners failed to explain why the owners duplicate of TCT No. 17100 does not contain such signature. Thus, the ruling of the CA that the owners duplicate presented by the petitioners is spurious is correct.

It appears that TCT No. 17100 was issued on October 3, 1940 in the names of the spouses Racadio. However, the property was not declared for taxation purposes since then. It was only in 1998, long after the demise of the spouses, that the property was declared for taxation purposes under their names and the realty taxes due thereon were paid. 41 German Lozano surmised that his grandparents, the spouses Racadio, acquired the property from Sixto Dominguez. 42 From the face of the owners duplicate of TCT No. 17100, it was issued in 1940. Assuming that the claim of petitioners that the spouses Racadio had acquired the property from Sixto Dominguez as early as 1940, they nevertheless still failed to explain why the technical description of the property prepared by the Land Management Office under the Department of Environment and Natural Resources on July 9, 1998, is still in the name of Sixto Dominguez. 43 When asked if he scrutinized the technical description of the property before submitting it to the court, German Lozano admitted that he failed to do so. Q Do you know a person b y the name of Sixto Dominguez? A My mother was saying before that she bought that from Sixto Dominguez. Q In fact, this Sixto Dominguez was the one who caused the survey of this lot as indicated here in the certification? A I dont know if he was the one who caused the survey, Sir. Q And who secured this Exh. "U" which is the technical description? A I was the one who secured it from San Fernando, La Union, Sir. Q You did not scrutinize this certification anymore when you received this certification from the DENR, San Fernando, La Union? A I did not scrutinize it, Sir, because my purpose is only to get the technical description of the lot. 44 Petitioners even failed to adduce in evidence a certified true copy of TCT No. 17009-P as proof that such title exists and is in the name of Sixto Dominguez. Indeed, there is no evidence on record that the spouses Racadio acquired the property from Sixto Dominguez. Obviously, the trial court failed to scrutinize and verify carefully the owners duplicate offered by petitioners and the accompanying documents of the petition for reconstitution. Once again, the Court reiterates its warning in Tahanan Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals: 45 Time and again, the integrity and inviolability of Torrens titles issued pursuant to the Land Registration Act (Act 496) and Presidential Decree No. 1529 have been shaken by the very courts whose unwavering duty should be to protect the rights and interests of title holders but instead have favored claimants under the guise of reconstitution filed after a long lapse of time after the Japanese occupation, alleging the existence of original and duplicate certificates of title issued pursuant to a court decree but have subsequently been lost or destroyed including the records of the land registration case on account of the war and lay claim and title to valuable parcels of land previously titled and registered under the Torrens

registration system and are even able to dispose these properties to unsuspecting homelot buyers and speculating land developers. The courts must be cautious and careful in granting reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates of title, both original and duplicate owners, based on documents and decrees made to appear authentic from mere xerox copies and certifications of officials supposedly signed with the seals of their office affixed thereon, considering the ease and facility with which documents are made to appear as official and authentic. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize and verify carefully all supporting documents, deeds and certifications. Each and every fact, circumstance or incident which corroborates or relates to the existence and loss of the title should be examined. 46 IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice WE CONCUR: ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN Chief Justice Chairperson CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN Chief Justice

Footnotes Penned by Associate Justice Eloy R. Bello, Jr. (retired), with Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Lucenito N. Tagle, concurring; rollo, pp. 51-56.
1 2

Fourteenth Division. Penned by Presiding Judge Rosario C. Cruz; rollo, pp. 27-30.

Records, p. 2. Id. at 7-8. Id. at 18. Id. at 19. Exh. "A,"id. at 20-21. Records, p. 30. Id. Id. at 54. Id. at 59. Exhibit "O," id. at 65. TSN, September 15, 1998, pp. 12-13. Exhibit "N," records, p. 4. TSN, December 19, 1999. TSN, October 19, 1999. Exhibit "R," records, p. 68. Exhibits "S" to "T-2," id. at 66-67. Exhibit "U," id. at 70. TSN, October 19, 1994, p. 14. Records, p. 74. Id. at 103. CA rollo, p. 18. Id. at 13-21. Exhibit "N," records, p. 4. Id. CA rollo, pp. 51-52.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Id. at 59. Id. at 17. Rollo, pp. 70-71.

30

31

Tahanan Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 203 Phil. 652 (1982); Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System v. Sison, 209 Phil. 325 (1983); Bermudo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-38622, October 26, 1987, 155 SCRA 8; Allama v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 88226, February 26, 1992, 206 SCRA 600.
32

Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104372, September 26, 1994, 237 SCRA 94.
33 34

102 SCRA 370. Republic v. Planas, 430 Phil. 848 (2002). Records, p. 61. Id. at 9.

35

36

37

In Re: Reconstitution of the Original Copy, as well as the Owners Duplicate Copy of TCT No. 38769, G.R. No. 148025, August 13, 2004, 436 SCRA 502.
38 39

Heirs of Ragua v. Court of Appeals, 381 Phil. 7, 24 (2000). Republic v. Holazo, G.R. No. 146846, August 31, 2004, 437 SCRA 345, 351-352. Exhibits "R" to "S," and their submarkings, records, pp. 67-68. TSN, October 19, 1999, p. 17. Exhibit "U," records, p. 70. TSN, October 19, 1999. Supra note 32. Id. at -691-692.

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 161042 August 24, 2009

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. AGRIPINA DELA RAGA, Respondent. DECISION CARPIO, J.: The Case This is a petition1 for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The petition challenges the 18 November 2003 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CV No. 66687. The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the 18 November 1999 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Judicial Region 1, Branch 47, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, in Pet. Case No. U-1449. The Facts Agripina dela Raga (Dela Raga) is the granddaughter and the only surviving heir of spouses Ignacio Serran (Ignacio) and Catalina Laguit (Laguit). At a very young age, Dela Raga lost her parents and her grandparents Ignacio and Laguit. Dela Raga possessed a 79,570-square meter parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 49266 and located in Barrio Dungon, Sison, Pangasinan. A relative informed Dela Raga that Ignacio was the titled owner of the property. Desirous to obtain a copy of OCT No. 49266, Dela Raga went to the Registers of Deeds of Lingayen, San Fernando, and Manila to inquire about the property. In the Register of Deeds of Manila, Dela Raga found Decree No. 196266 declaring the property in the names of Ignacio and Laguit and the spouses Felipe Serafica (Serafica) and Cornelia Serran (Cornelia).
1avvphi1

Dela Raga filed with the RTC a petition4 for the reconstitution of OCT No. 49266 in the names of Ignacio, Laguit, Serafica, and Cornelia. In her petition dated 8 December 1998, Dela Raga stated: Comes now the petitioner, thru counsel, and before this Honorable Court, respectfully states: xxxx 2. That Ignacio Serran is the titled owner of a parcel of land located in Dungon, Sison, Pangasinan, particularly described as follows: x x x the property is covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 49266; xxxx

5. That petitioner is the granddaughter of Ignacio Serran whose daughter Anecita Serran is the mother of petitioner; 6. That when Ignacio Serran died Aniceta Serran inherited the property, subject matter of this petition and when the latter also died petitioner likewise inherited the same property; 7. That when the mother of petitioner died the latter was only six years old and she has never seen any owners duplicate copy of OCT No. 49266; 8. That even when petitioner has reached discerning age she continued possessing the subject property in the concept of an owner not minding the fact that she is not in possession of the owners duplicate copy of OCT No. 49266; 9. That it was only in the later years that petitioner realized the importance of having a duplicate copy of OCT No. 49266 hence, she tried to asked [sic] immediate relatives of the whereabouts of the said copy to no avail; 10. That petitioner has considered the owners duplicate copy of OCT No. 49266 to have been lost and beyond recovery hence, she attempted to file a petition for the issuance of new owners duplicate copy in lieu of the lost one by requesting from Register of Deeds of Lingayen, Pangasinan the certification as to the existence of OCT No. 49266 but to the surprised [sic] of petitioner the copy of OCT No. 49266 in the custody of the Register of Deeds was also one of those Original Certificate of Title [sic] issued before the pre war [sic] that were destroyed or deemed lost, copy of the certification of Register of Deeds is hereto attached as Annex A; 11. That for purposes of reconstituting Original Certificate of Title No. 49266, Decree No. 196266 may be used as a basis thereof, copy of the Decree No. 196266 which was the basis of issuance of the lost OCT No. 49266 certified by the Land Registration Authority is hereto attached as Annex B.5 The RTC set the initial hearing on 18 August 1999. Dela Raga presented her documentary evidence: (1) copy of the petition, (2) certificate of posting, (3) notice of order dated 19 February 1999, (4) proof of service to different government agencies, (5) certificate of publication, (6) notice to adjacent owners, (7) birth certificate of her mother Aniceta Serran, (8) certificate from the Register of Deeds that OCT No. 49266 could not be found despite diligent efforts, and (9) Tax Receipt No. 1144140. As testimonial evidence, Dela Raga and a certain Pascua Estibar testified. The RTCs Ruling In its Decision dated 18 November 1999, the RTC granted the petition. The RTC found that (1) Dela Raga is the granddaughter of Ignacio, (2) Ignacio owned the property, (3) the property was covered by OCT No. 49266, (4) OCT No. 49266 was in the name of Ignacio, (5) the Register of Deeds copy of OCT No. 49266 was destroyed during the war, and (6) Dela Raga complied with all the jurisdictional requirements for the reconstitution of OCT No. 49266. The RTC stated: From the evidence presented during the ex-parte presentation of evidence before the Branch Clerk of Court, the following facts were proven:

The petitioner is the grandchild of Ignacio Serran, one of the registered owners of the land subject of this petition. The petitioners mother was Aniceta Serran, one of the daughetrs of Ignacio Serran as evidenced by Exh. "N". The name of the other child of Ignacio Serran was Cornelia Serran. Both children have already died including Ignacio Serran. When Ignacio Serran died, he left a property located at Dungon, Sison, Pangasinan. The same property was covered by a title. However, the office copy of the title was destroyed during the World War II as evidenced by a pre-war inventory of the Registry of Deeds of Pangasinan marked as EXH. "O". From such inventory of original certificates of the Registry of Deeds of Pangasinan (Exh. "0-1"), there was an entry O.C.T. No. 49266 to 49267 mutilated. In Exh. "O", Original Certificate No. 49266, Vol. 162, Page 239 was in the name of Serran, Ignacio, et. al. A Certification, Exh. "P" was issued by the Registry of Deeds of Pangasinan certifying to the effect that the Original Certificate of Title No. 49266 could not be found or located among the files in the registry, thus it was presumed lost or destroyed. Another document that proved the ownership of Ignacio Serran, et. al., was an application for the registration of title (EXH. "T") filed before the Court of First Instance for the Province of Pangasinan by Ignacio Serran on October 3, 1924 represented by E.Q. Turner. Annexed thereto were Description of Property as surveyed for Ignacio Serran (Exh. "T-2"), Registration of Titles, Case No. 5507, G.L.R.O. Record No. 26031 (Exh. "T-3"), Decision of the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Pangasinan in G.L.R.O. Rec. No. 26031, Ignacio Serran, Solicitante, (Exh. "T-9"); and Order for the Issuance of the Decree (Exh. "T-11"). On November 28, 1925, Enrique Altavas, Chief of the General Land Registration Office issued Decree No. 196266 in accordance with the Order for the Issuance of the Decree issued by the Court in undivided equal shares, in the name of the conjugal partnership of the spouses IGNACIO SERRAN and CATALINA LAGUIT, and the conjugal partnership of the spouses FELIPE SERAFICA and CORNELIA SERRAN. The said Decree covers Case No. 5507, G.L.R.O. Record No. 26031 over a parcel of land (Plan Psu-35755) situated in the Barrio of Dungon, Municipality of Sison, containing an area of SEVENTY NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED & SEVENTY SQUARE METERS (79,570). The said Decree was certified to by the Chief, Docket Division of the Land Registration Authority. xxxx The petitioner had been paying the taxes on the subject land as evidenced by Tax Declaration No. 019-00002 (Exh. "V") and the Tax Receipt as Exh. "U". At present the petitioner is enjoying the fruits of the land. The petitioner also testified that she has no knowledge whatsoever of any mortgage over the land in favor of a person, agency or banking institution. Further, the petitioner has no knowledge if other persons are claiming the property. xxxx After an analysis of the documentary and testimonial evidence on record and finding them to be sufficient and substantial to support the petition, and finding further compliance of the jurisdictional requirements, this Court grants the reconstitution of the lost title. 6 The Republic of the Philippines (Republic) appealed the 18 November 1999 Decision to the Court of Appeals. In its brief7 dated 11 December 2000, the Republic claimed that Dela Raga failed to prove her relationship to Ignacio and that the report of the Register of Deeds was insufficient. The Republic stated:

[T]he record is bereft of proof to show that indeed, appellee is the granddaughter of the registered owner. xxxx Except for the bare allegations in the petition, appellee failed to present any proof to establish her relationship to Ignacio Serran, one of the registered owners. The fact that appellee carried the name dela Raga, inescapably carries no presumption for her relationship to any of the registered owners bearing different names. Appellees self-serving testimony that she is the granddaughter of Ignacio Serran cannot be accepted, hook line and sinker. Having failed to prove interest over the land covered by the decree over the certificate of title, the trial court should have dismissed the petition. At any rate, even if appellee had established her interest in the subject property, the trial court should have dismissed the petition for reconstitution just the same, because there is no showing that OCT No. 49266 was still valid and subsisting, that is, not superseded by any transfer certificate of title, at the time of its loss and destruction. The certification of the Register of Deeds merely states: CERTIFICATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This is to certify that the original file copy of TRANSFER/ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 49266, could not be found or located among the file in this registry, despite diligent effort the same could not be found, therefore it is presumed lost or destroyed (eaten by anays). xxxx The foregoing certification fails to show that the certificate of title was valid and subsisting at the time of loss. It fell short of the required data which must be reported by the Register of Deed [sic], as provided in paragraph 12, LRA Circular No. 35, stating that: 12. The Register of Deeds, upon receipt of a copy of the petition and notice of hearing, shall verify the status of the title whether valid and subsisting at the time of the alleged loss; whether or not another title exists in the said office covering the same property; and as to the existence of transactions registered or pending registration, which maybe adversely affected thereby. He shall submit his written findings to the Court on or before the date of initial hearing of the petition.8 The Court of Appeals Ruling In its Decision dated 18 November 2003, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the RTCs 18 November 1999 Decision. The Court of Appeals held that the Republic failed to show convincing evidence to discredit the RTCs factual findings and that the Republics claim that the Register of Deeds report was insufficient was without substance. The Court of Appeals stated:

The Republic failed to show substantial and convincing evidence to rebut the lower courts findings of fact. As between the negation of the Republic and the conclusion reached by the court a quo as to the filiation of herein petitioner-appellee to Ignacio Serran, having as basis thereof the documents presented during the ex-parte hearing and the testimony of one Pascual Estibal, we give the lower courts findings, due respect. "Factual findings of the trial court shall not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court has overlooked or ignored some fact or circumstance or sufficient weight or significance which, if considered, would alter the situation." "It is doctrinally settled that the evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses by the trial court is received on appeal with the highest respect because it had the direct opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand and detect if they were telling the truth ." The Republics argument that the Certification issued by the Register of Deeds does not show that OCT No. 49266 is still valid and subsisting, hence, the petition for reconstitution should be dismissed, is unsubstantial to deserve consideration. The Register of Deeds was notified of the instant petition for reconstitution as a jurisdictional requirement. If it so believes that the subject OCT is tainted with any flaw, defect or infirmity, it should have filed an opposition, which it did not. 9 Hence, the present petition. The Issue In its petition dated 14 January 2004, the Republic raised as sole issue that "THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT RESPONDENT FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE WAS VALID AND SUBSISTING AT THE TIME OF ITS ALLEGED LOSS OR DESTRUCTION."10 The Republic stated: It is settled that reconstitution of title presupposes a valid and existing title at the time of its loss or destruction. The certification issued by the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan merely states that OCT No. 49266 could not be found or located in the files of said registry and is therefore presumed lost or destroyed, thus: CERTIFICATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: This is to certify that the original copy of TRANSFER/ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 49266, could not be found or located among the file in this registry, despite diligent effort the same could not be found, therefore it is presumed lost or destroyed (eaten by annays). Notably, the certification issued by the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan fell short of the required data which must be reported by the Register of Deeds, as provided in paragraph 12, LRA Circular No. 35, stating that: 12. The Register of Deeds, upon receipt of a copy of the petition and notice of hearing, shall verify the status of the title whether valid and subsisting at the time of the alleged loss;

whether or not another title exists in the said office covering the same property; and as to the existence of transactions registered or pending registration, which maybe adversely affected thereby. He shall submit his written findings to the Court on or before the date of initial hearing of the petition. Petitioner takes exception to the Court of Appeals finding that the absence of active opposition by the Register of Deeds is adequate to support a conclusion that the subject original certificate of title is valid and subsisting at the time of loss. The alleged absence of active opposition of the Register of Deeds did not relieve respondent of the burden of proving the merits of her petition for reconstitution. xxxx Given the allegation that that [sic] it has been over 75 years that the alleged OCT had been existing and the fact that it is registered in the name of two sets of spouses, the burden lies on respondent to show proof that aside from the fact that the subject OCT was valid and subsisting at the time of its loss, no other title exists in the said office covering the same property as well as the absence of any transaction affecting said title, pursuant to LRA Circular No. 35 dated June 13, 1983. The Courts Ruling The petition is unmeritorious. The sufficiency of the Register of Deeds report is not an indispensable requirement in reconstitution cases. The report may even be disregarded. In Puzon v. Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc.,11 the Court held: Even LR[A] Circular No. 35, which is also mentioned in Circular 7-96, does not require any clearance. Rather, it requires the Chief of the Clerks of Court Division to make a report, and likewise the Register of Deeds to write a report of his or her findings after verifying the status of the title, which is the subject of the reconstitution. Both reports are to be submitted to the reconstitution court on or before the date of the initial hearing. It is not mandatory, however, for the reconstitution court to wait for such reports indefinitely. If none is forthcoming on or before the date of the initial hearing, it may validly issue an order or judgment granting reconstitution. This is implied from the provisions of Section 16 of the same Circular, which states: "16. Should an order or judgment granting reconstitution be issued by the Court without awaiting the report and the recommendations of this Commission as well as the verification of the Register of Deeds concerned, or while the examination, verification and preparation of the report and recommendation are still pending in the said Offices due to the failure of the Clerk of Court or the petitioner to comply with all the necessary requirements as called for herein, and it appears that there is a valid ground to oppose the reconstitution, a motion to set aside the order/judgment granting reconstitution or to stay the period of finality of said order/judgment shall be filed by the Land Registration Commissioner and/or the Register of Deeds thru the Solicitor General or the provincial or city fiscal concerned." In the present case, therefore, neither was the Petition for reconstitution affected nor was the RTC divested of its jurisdiction by the fact that the trial court rendered the judgment ordering the reconstitution of a lost or destroyed certificate of title without awaiting the report and recommendations of the land registration commissioner and the register of deeds of Quezon

City. (Emphasis supplied) Section 15 of Republic Act No. 26 states: Section 15. If the court, after hearing, finds that the documents presented, as supported by parole evidence or otherwise, are sufficient and proper to warrant the reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title, and that the petitioner is the registered owner of the property or has an interest therein, that the said certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed, and that the description, area and boundaries of the property are substantially the same as those contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title, an order of reconstitution shall be issued. In the present case, the RTC found Dela Ragas evidence sufficient and proper to warrant the reconstitution of OCT No. 49266. The RTC held: From the evidence presented during the ex-parte presentation of evidence before the Branch Clerk of Court, the following facts were proven: The petitioner is the grandchild of Ignacio Serran, one of the registered owners of the land subject of this petition. The petitioners mother was Aniceta Serran, one of the daughetrs of Ignacio Serran as evidenced by Exh. "N". The name of the other child of Ignacio Serran was Cornelia Serran. Both children have already died including Ignacio Serran. When Ignacio Serran died, he left a property located at Dungon, Sison, Pangasinan. The same property was covered by a title. However, the office copy of the title was destroyed during the World War II as evidenced by a pre-war inventory of the Registry of Deeds of Pangasinan marked as EXH. "O". From such inventory of original certificates of the Registry of Deeds of Pangasinan (Exh. "0-1"), there was an entry O.C.T. No. 49266 to 49267 mutilated. In Exh. "O", Original Certificate No. 49266, Vol. 162, Page 239 was in the name of Serran, Ignacio, et. al. A Certification, Exh. "P" was issued by the Registry of Deeds of Pangasinan certifying to the effect that the Original Certificate of Title No. 49266 could not be found or located among the files in the registry, thus it was presumed lost or destroyed. Another document that proved the ownership of Ignacio Serran, et. al., was an application for the registration of title (EXH. "T") filed before the Court of First Instance for the Province of Pangasinan by Ignacio Serran on October 3, 1924 represented by E.Q. Turner. Annexed thereto were Description of Property as surveyed for Ignacio Serran (Exh. "T-2"), Registration of Titles, Case No. 5507, G.L.R.O. Record No. 26031 (Exh. "T-3"), Decision of the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Pangasinan in G.L.R.O. Rec. No. 26031, Ignacio Serran, Solicitante, (Exh. "T-9"); and Order for the Issuance of the Decree (Exh. "T-11"). On November 28, 1925, Enrique Altavas, Chief of the General Land Registration Office issued Decree No. 196266 in accordance with the Order for the Issuance of the Decree issued by the Court in undivided equal shares, in the name of the conjugal partnership of the spouses IGNACIO SERRAN and CATALINA LAGUIT, and the conjugal partnership of the spouses FELIPE SERAFICA and CORNELIA SERRAN. The said Decree covers Case No. 5507, G.L.R.O. Record No. 26031 over a parcel of land (Plan Psu-35755) situated in the Barrio of Dungon, Municipality of Sison, containing an area of SEVENTY NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED & SEVENTY SQUARE METERS (79,570). The said Decree was certified to by the Chief, Docket Division of the Land Registration Authority. xxxx

The petitioner had been paying the taxes on the subject land as evidenced by Tax Declaration No. 019-00002 (Exh. "V") and the Tax Receipt as Exh. "U". At present the petitioner is enjoying the fruits of the land. The petitioner also testified that she has no knowledge whatsoever of any mortgage over the land in favor of a person, agency or banking institution. Further, the petitioner has no knowledge if other persons are claiming the property. xxxx After an analysis of the documentary and testimonial evidence on record and finding them to be sufficient and substantial to support the petition, and finding further compliance of the jurisdictional requirements, this Court grants the reconstitution of the lost title. 12 (Emphasis supplied) When the RTC found Dela Ragas evidence sufficient and proper to warrant the reconstitution of OCT No. 49266, the RTC had the duty to issue the order of reconstitution. In Republic v. Casimiro,13 the Court held: When a court, after hearing of a petition for reconstitution, finds that the evidence presented is sufficient and proper to grant the same, x x x it becomes the duty of the court to issue the order of reconstitution. This duty is mandatory. The law does not give the court discretion to deny the reconstitution if all the basic requirements have been complied with. (Emphasis supplied) The factual findings of the RTC, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on the Court. The exceptions to this rule are (1) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (2) when the findings are grounded on speculations; (3) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the factual findings are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the admissions of the parties; (7) when the Court of Appeals overlooked undisputed facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (8) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) when the facts set forth by the petitioner are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.14 The Republic did not show that the present case falls under any of the exceptions. WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the 18 November 2003 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 66687. SO ORDERED. ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice WE CONCUR: REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice Chairperson

RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice

Footnotes
1

Rollo, pp. 17-40.

Id. at 10-14. Penned by Associate Justice Arsenio J. Magpale, with Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Bienvenido L. Reyes concurring.
2 3

Id. at 66-70. Penned by Judge Meliton G. Emuslan. Id. at 48-51. Id. at 48-50. Id. at 67-69. Id. at 73-87. Id. at 82-85. Id. at 13-14. Id. at 28. 406 Phil. 263, 278 (2001). Rollo, pp. 67-69. G.R. No. 166139, 20 June 2006, 491 SCRA 499, 523-524.

10

11

12

13

Ilagan-Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 171374, 8 April 2008, 550 SCRA 635, 647.
14